- The ultimate thread pool - 2 Updates
- Scanning memory forward vs. reverse - 1 Update
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Jan 30 11:44AM +0100 Am 29.01.2024 um 23:45 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Why use _WIN32 here to disable all of those important warnings? > _MSC_VER instead? I could change that, but clang-cl is the only compiler that recoginizes _MSC_VER and doesn't complain about the #pragmas. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Jan 30 03:19PM -0800 On 1/30/2024 2:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> _MSC_VER instead? > I could change that, but clang-cl is the only compiler that recoginizes > _MSC_VER and doesn't complain about the #pragmas. MSVC should define _MSC_VER, not exactly sure why clang-cl would be in the mix. Probably due to: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/MSVCCompatibility.html Back in the day I used several compilers on Windows. Humm... Anyway, what's up with all of those pragmas anyway? ;^) |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Jan 30 11:47AM +0100 Am 29.01.2024 um 23:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> one in the cacheline doesn't matter since physical offset zero would >> then be occupied by logical offset 63. > You don't want to straddle any cache lines. ... I'm testing all 64 offsets and for my measurement it doesn't matter if the beginning of the block is at offset zero inside a cacheline since the result show equal access times for all offsets. If there were different results it might have made sense to have proper alignment. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment